ERIC ED385302: Learning from the Past, or Must History Repeat Itself? The Learning Center's Annual Report, 1994-95.

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 385 302

JC 950 367

AUTHOR
TITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATE
NOTE
PUB TYPE

Piatt, Gail M.

Learning from the Past, or Must History Repeat
Itself? The Learning Center's Annual Report,
1994-95*

South Plains Coll*, Levelland, TX* Learning

Center*

Jul 95

23p*

Reports - Research/Technical (143) —
Tests/Evaluation Instruments (160)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage*

DESCRIPTORS Academic Advising; Case Studies; Community Colleges;

^Developmental Studies Programs; ^Faculty
Development; ^Learning Resources Centers; ^Outcomes
of Education; ^Remedial Instruction; Student
Evaluation of Teacher Performance; Two Year Colleges;
*Two Year College Students

IDENTIFIERS South Plains College TX

ABSTRACT

The Learning Center (LC) at South Plains College
(SPC) , in Texas, was established to provide remedial instruction in
learning strategies, reading, and writing; college-level instruction
in critical thinking and human development; tutorial assistance;
study skills seminars; and other services* During the 1994-95
academic year, over 3,466 students were served, representing a 41*9X
increase over the previous year and including 1,342 who received
tutorial assistance and 1,124 who attended study seminars* Student
evaluations of LC instruction carried out in fall 1994 resulted in a
mean rating of 4*562 on a 5-point scale, consistent with SPC's
institutional mean of 4*5* However, results from tie state Texas
Academic Skills Program (TASP) assessment test indicate that SPC
students performed at lower levels in 1994-95 than in previous years
and that they performed more poorly than students statewide* Of the
1,129 SPC students who attempted the TASP Math test, for example,
only 447* met the remediation standard and 126 students failed all 3
parts of the TASP* Case studies of three of these failing students
revealed that in each case proper advisement could have directed the
students to appropriate remedial courses that would have improved
their chances for success* Finally, the faculty of the LC, which
includes five professional developmental educators , participated in a
process of Continuous Quality Management to improve instruction and
have identified the need for greater availability of computers to
enhance LC services* (June 1995 TASP data and a class reaction survey
instrument are appended*) (KP)

ft Vc Vc ft ft Vc ft Vc ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document* *

Vc Vc Vc Vc ft ft ft ft ft ft ft Vc Vc ft Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc ft Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc ft Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc Vc

1

O
en

oo

Q

W

Learning from the Past or

Must History Repeat Itself?

The Learning Center's
Annual Report, 1994-95

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
C"c<- oi t a ..mU'-m ne*(MVh ,i'«3 i»ni»»ov«'—
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
,/ CFNTER lERlCi

gf> Thts document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it

□ Minor changes have been made lo
improve reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not nccessaply represent
official OERI position or policy

SEEN GRANTED 8V

r

NO

VP

Gail M. Piatt, Ph.D.
South Plains College
Levelland, TX 79336
(806)894-9611, ext. 240

July 1995

2

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Abstract

This annual report contains a description of activities and services provided in the
South Plains College Learning Center during the 1994-95 academic year, including reports
on students served, instruction and instructional outcomes, Learning Center curriculum,
and faculty The report features case studies of three students selected at random from a
pool of 126 students who had failed all three parts of the Texas Academic Skills Program
(TASP) Test, a state-mandated academic skills placement test. Beginning the report is a
discussion of TASP and its effect on developmental education in Texas in the past six
years since its inception in September 1989. Concluding the report is a discussion of the
future of developmental education, especially as student demographics change the face of
tomorrow's typical college student.

Learning from the Past or

Must History Repeat Itself*.

The Learning Center's
Annual Report, 1994-95

Introduction

Almost a decade ago, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board's
Committee on Testing began its report on the need for expanded developmental education
in Texas colleges and universities with the following pronouncement:

Every year more than 1 10,000 freshmen enter Texas public colleges and
universities. Of these, at least 30,000 cannot read, communicate, or
compute at levels needed to perform effectively in higher education. Some
become college drop-outs — not because they lack the ability, but because
they lack the skills. Others receive degrees without ever mastering basic
skills. The tragedy is that we often do not know they are deficient until it is
too late to help them. . . . they represent a generation of failure in our
educational system. {A Generation of Failure, 1986, p. 1).

The Committee on Testing subsequently recommended that (a) all entering college
students be assessed in reading, writing, and math, (b) institutions develop advisement
programs to assure accurate placement of students, (c) institutions develop remedial
programs, (d) remediation be required, (e) efforts be evaluated, (f) faculty across the state
be involved in the development of the assessment, and (g) the legislature provide adequate
funding for assessment and remediation.
The Texas Academic Skills Program (TASP)

The result of this report was legislation creating the Texas Academic Skills
Program, implemented in the fall 1989. Prior to TASP, South Plains College, like most
community colleges in Texas, provided assessment of students 1 reading, writing, and math
skills. Using the "Nelson Denny Reading Test," 59 pe rcent of the students who entered

4

SPC in 1986-87 were tound to read below college-level, with 29 percent reading below
the ninth grade level. In writing, 40 percent had unacceptable ratings on their writing
sample. In math, using a locally-developed math test, 13 percent of the students were
unable to perform basic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division
using whole numbers, tractions, and decimals) (Piatt, 1987).

TASP scores provided to the institution by National Evaluation Systems (NES) in
the spring 1995 indicated that 34 percent of students lacked reading skills, 39.5 percent
lacked math skills, and 25 percent lacked writing skills sufficient to enter college-level
programs of study. Moreover, only 7.6 percent of the students tested demonstrated math
proficiency sufficient to undertake college algebra.

A team of researchers found that although 96 percent of the two-year institutions
in Texas assessed students in reading, writing, and math, only half of the students
identified as needing remedial reading actually enrolled in a reading course, and only 60
percent who needed remedial writing or math enrolled (Skinner & Carter, 1987). In other
words, Texas community colleges provided assessment, but placement test scores most
often were used for making recommendations, not for mandatory placement in remedial
courses or programs. For example, only 36 percent of the SPC students in 1986-87 who
were advised to enroll in reading remediation did so. Only 3 1 percent of the students who
were advised to enroll in remedial writing did so.

When the college used its own assessment program prior to TASP, 35 percent of
all entering students were found deficient in only one academic skill, 25 percent were
deficient in two academic skills, and 9 percent were weak in all three areas (Piatt, 1987).
Compared to TASP performance, 25.8 percent of the students tested in June 1995 were
weak in only one academic area (6.5 percent in reading, 15 percent in math, and 4.3
percent in writing); 15.2 percent were weak in two academic areas, and 9 percent were
weak in all three areas. (See Table A.)

Required remediation. For a variety ot reasons, students then were (as now)
reluctant to accept recommendations tor remedial work. Many nontraditional students are
reliant on tinancial aid programs which may not pay tor remedial courses or may place
unrealistic expectations on students whose academic preparation is lacking. Some
students who are paying their own way through school, likewise, are reluctant to pay tor
courses that do not earn degree credit. In cases where students are willing to enroll in
remediation, parents sometimes are unwilling to pay for such courses.

Another reason students resist taking remedial courses is that first-generation
coilege students frequently operate on the mistaken notion that community college
programs must be completed in four regular semesters, being unaware that even tew well-
prepared students are able to proceed through coursework at that rate — especially, today
when students are more likely to be employed (sometimes tiill-time) while they pursue
their education. Compounding this problem is that many college counselors, advisors, and
faculty also tend to think in terms of students' completing programs of study or degree
plans in four years. Rigid adherence to a prescribed plan of study allows no room for
remedial coursework.

Finally, some students are convinced that high school graduation assures them of
success in college-level courses; this notion seems prevalent among recent high school
graduates despite the tact that the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) exit-test
used to certify high school graduation in Texas measures skills — at best - at the eighth
grade level (Ashworth, 1994). This level is insufficient for performing successfully in
college-level courses, that is, if the courses are, indeed, college-level.

In a review of relevant studies, Friedlander (1982) found that only a small
percentage of students who could benefit from remediation took advantage of voluntary
programs. He explained that students avoid courses which require the use of the skills in
which they are weak and lack confidence (such as math-intensive courses), and that
students seldom participate in programs designed to correct deficiencies. When asked

why students had not taken advantage of available remediation, 40 percent ot the students
and 50 percent ot the faculty at one institution replied that they believed students did not
have time or that participation was inconvenient. Students also indicated that they did not
feel that the particular skill in which they were weak (whether reading, writing, or math)
was really needed in order to succeed in their courses . Friedlander's conclusion that
remediation be mandatory tbund considerable support (Maxwell, 1980; Roueche, Baker,
& Roueche, 1985; Roueche & Roueche, 1977; Rounds & Anderson, 1985).

As TASP completes its sixth year in Texas, the fact that students (and
constituents) still are reluctant to remediate is evident as legislators tinker with the
program, ottering exemptions for students with learning disorders (including dyslexia),
deaf and blind students, students in certificate programs, and older students (even as
young as 45 in regard to math remediation), all populations standing to benefit greatly
from opportunities (even those which are imposed) to acquire and improve academic skills
for success in college and lite. The messages (among others) sent by such legislation are
that some groups cannot achieve proficiency (or at least not at the same level that other
students attain), and that some skills (for example, math) are not as important as others.

Uncertain Future Creates Opportunity. That the future of TASP is in jeopardy
should be seen as an opportunity for institutions to develop appropriate and effective local
assessment, placement, and remediation policies and practices, building on what has been
proven effective by TASP, in order to assure that the problems identified by the original
Committee on Testing are addressed. Students who have the ability to perform, but who
lack the skills, must be taught so that they can become wage-earners and taxpayers.
Moreover, students who carry a diploma from an institution must possess college-level
skills to grant them a realistic opportunity for farther academic pursuits or for entering
the world of work.

TASP data have shown that students who complete remediation are retained at
higher rates and earn grade points averages comparable to those of students who never

even needed remediation (Piatt, 1992). Remedial education (which makes up tor the skills
and content which should have been learned in high school) and developmental education
(which is developmentaiiy-, skill- and age-appropriate instruction for the skills and content
not presented in high school) do produce the desired results. Students can acquire the
skills needed tor success in college when they enroll in the appropriate reading, writing,
and math classes.

This annual report of the South Plains College Learning Center describes the
operation of the Learning Center which provides remedial instruction in learning strategies
and reading, reading and writing, college-level instruction in critical thinking and human
development, independent-study options, supplemental instruction in basic academic areas
(reading, writing, and math), tutorial assistance, and study skills seminars, among other
services (including the assessment of learning styles and learning strategies). The Learning
Center also ofters personalized counseling, advisement, and assistance to students wishing
to increase their skills and their level of performance in college classes. The Learning
Center is a comprehensive academic support service.

Report Contents. Specifically, the annual report includes discussion of the
students served by the Learning Center, the faculty who work with and for students in the
Learning Center, and issues involving both students and faculty who are concerned about
student success. An analysis of significant trends and issues affecting the future of the
Learning Center also is included in this report.

Students: Who, What, and How
An Increasing Number of Students

Over 3, 466 1 students were served in the Learning Center during the 1994-95
academic year. This number represents a 41.9 percent increase over the number served

1 This number does not include the students who enrolled in classes taught by Learning
Center faculty.

5

ERLC 8

the previous year, 1993-94. The total number of contacts was more than 18,691, a 55
percent increase over the previous year. The number of students receiving tutorial
assistance almost doubled, increasing from 683 in 1993-94 to K342 in 1994-95. 2 There
was also a significant increase in the number of students attending study skills seminars,
increasing from 266 in 1993-94 to 1,124 in 1994-95. Outreach services for nonstudents
(potential students) also more than doubled, reaching a total of 106 in 1994-95 compared
to 42 in 1993-94. There also was increase in the number of students enrolling in courses
taught by Learning Center faculty, up to 616 this year from 484 the previous year, but this
increase can be partially attributed to the college-level reading courses (RDG 133 and
134) and human development (HD 130) course. Also, not only have the Learning Center
staff and faculty seen an increase in the numbers of students served and the number of
requests for services made by these students, but the staff and faculty continue to become
more adept at record-keeping. Despite this observation, it is likely that these numbers
understate the actual number of students served since office visits and phone calls are
rarely documented.
Students and Assessment Results

Instruction. In the fall 1994, student evaluations of instruction in the Learning
Center revealed a 4.562 mean rating on a 9-item 5-point Likert scaled instrument used
systemwide. This rating was consistent with the institutional mean of 4.5, and somewhat
better than the 4.3 1 rating achieved in the fall 1993. Some qualifications, however, are in
order since three of the four instructors in the Learning Center are tenured and did not
participate in the student evaluation process; moreover, the one nontenured instructor
teaches only one to two courses each semester as his responsibilities lie in other
instructional areas (labs).

2 This number is for both the fall 1994 and spring 1995 semester and, therefore, is a
duplicated count.

o

/

■ •

Instructors in the Learning Center use a variety of classroom assessment tools and
techniques to evaluate teaching effectiveness. For an example of a classroom assessment
tool, please refer to Attachment A.

Heading and i ASP Performance. Another tool for assessing the effectiveness
of instruction in the Learning Center is the collection and analysis of T ASP data indicating
the success of students who enroll in reading courses. In the fall 1994, 137 students
enrolled in reading courses; 121 were enrolled in remedial courses, 26 were enrolled in
college-level reading courses, and 20 were enrolled in non-course-based remediation. At
the highest level of remediation ottered, 74 percent of the students enrolled successiuily
completed the course; however, 56 percent of those who successfully completed the
course did not attempt the TASP Test during the fall semester. Therefore, for the
majority of students in the course, there is no data to support either the success or failure
of the course in regard to effectiveness rbr TASP preparation. Of the 20 students who did
attempt the TASP Reading Test, 13 (05 percent) did pass.

In the intermediate level remedial course, 33 of the 49 students who enrolled (67
percent) successiuily completed the course; 20 attempted the TASP Reading Test, and 8
(40 percent) passed. In the lowest level remedial course, 8 of the 1 1 students enrolled
successfully completed the course; 3 attempted the TASP Reading Test, but none passed.
It should be noted that students enrolled in the intermediate or lowest level remedial
courses are not expected to be prepared for passing the TASP Test after only one
semester of remediation.

Of the 20 students who participated in non-course-based remediation in reading, 8
(25 percent) did not successfully complete the recommended program of remediation.
Only 3 of the 15 who did complete remediation attempted the TASP Reading Test and 2
(67 percent) passed; since the majority of those completing remediation did not attempt
the TASP Reading Test, reliable data on the effectiveness of non-course-based
remediation are not available.

Assessment ot components within the purview ot the Learning Center has
identified significant issues for the Learning Center in regard to instruction; these include
(a) the proper placement of students into developmental courses on the basis of TASP
scores; (b) the continuance of students in remediation until the TASP is passed; (c) the
inappropriateness of TASP standards to ensure college-entry level skills; (d) the lack of
collegiate standards in reading and writing across the curriculum; and (e) the importance
of administrative support for assessment, placement, and remediation. Items a, b, and e
can be addressed through the cooperative and informed efforts of faculty, advisors,
administrators, and students. However, a confounding factor this year was the Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board's decision to rescind the 230 remediation standard
on the TASP Reading and Math Tests in January 1995 which meant that several students
who had preregistered for the college-level reading course (RDG 133) and a lab (RDG
000) were no longer required to participate in remediation. The Registrar's Office
contacted these individuals and advised them to drop the RDG 133 course, in effect,
reducing contact-hour ftinding for reading. Many other institutions in the state required
students to enroll in appropriate courses and then, after the Coordinating Board's January
17 meeting (at which time the standard issue was officially approved), notified students of
an option to drop the course (this being after the twelfth class day). Such action at SPC
would have.&fhefited the reading program and sent students the message that reading is
important. Item c is a continuing challenge to the state legislature and the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board; item d is an important issue tor all of higher education.

Effectiveness of the Curriculum (Including
Overall TASP Performance)

One change was offered to the Curriculum Committee by the Learning Center this

academic year in regard to the College Success Course (HD 130). The descriptive title

was changed as was the course description to match clearly the definition for social

8

ERLC

ii

psychology as stated in the Community College General Academic Course Guide
Manual (See Attachment B.)

An important curricular issue for the Learning Center is the success of the reading
curriculum in preparing students for TASP success and, beyond TASP, classroom success.
Official TASP data reveal that SPC students as a group continue to perform poorly on all
parts of the TASP Test. For example, based on TASP Test data tor SPC students taking
the test at the September, November, January, or February administrations (1994-95), of
the 1,051 students taking the test, 66 percent met the minimum standard in reading, 61
percent met the minimum standard in math, and 69 percent met the passing standard in
writing. For purposes of comparison, the fall 1993 data showed 74 percent passing
reading, 62 percent passing math, and 78 percent passing writing. In all areas, SPC
students performed significantly poorer in 1994-95 than in past years.

Statewide data collected over a four year-period (cohort data from 1989-90
through 1992-93) showed students' steady but slow decline in reading performance with
passing rates ranging from 88.5 percent in 1989-90 to 85.8 percent in 1992-93), an
irregul r pattern but slight decline in math (from 78.7 percent passing in 1989-90 to 77.3
percent passing in 1992-93), and a steady improvement in writing (from 79.3 percent
passing in 1989-90 to 81.8 in 1992-93). Again, SPC students consistently perform more
poorly than do students statewide; however, such may be reasonably expected at open-
admissions institutions.

The point, nonetheless, is that entering students continue to demonstrate serious
skill deficiencies in reading, writing, and mathematics. This point is made even clearer by
examining students' performance on the TASP Math Test. Of the 1,129 SPC students
who attempted the TASP Math Test in 1994-95, only 44 percent met the remediation
standard (scaled score of 230 or higher). Worse still was that only 5 percent (or 56 of the
total tested) indicated readiness for college algebra by their performance on the TASP
Math Test. In writing, 3 1 percent of SPC students required remediation; 34 percent

9

ERiC 12

required remedntion in reading; and, 39 percent required remediation in math. In other
words, more than a third of SPC students taking the TASP Test are not prepared to
undertake coilege-level study.

Three Case Studies. Of even greater concern is that 126 students (or 12 percent)
failed all three parts of the TASP Test, thus indicating serious deficiencies in all basic
skills. Case studies of three students, selected at random from this population, shed some
light on the particular needs of these students. One 22 year-old white male failed all three
parts of the TASP Test in November 1994. A law enforcement major, he enrolled in three
law enforcement courses, orientation, a physical education course, and a remedial English
course in the fall. He earned C's in his law enforcement and orientation courses, ixi A in
physical education, and a PR grade in English, ending the semester with a 2.22 GPA; this
spring, he changed his major to electrical utilities technology, enrolling in eight hours of
EUT, a physical education course, and beginning fdgebra. This student appears to be one
who not only lacked academic skill* in reading, writing, and math to undertake college-
level study, but also one who needed career counseling and advisement; interestingly, the
program selected this spring by the student has a certificate option which exempts the
student from the requirements of TASP.

A second student, a 21 year-old white female, failed all three parts of the TASP
Test (very narrowly missing the Reading Test) in November 1994. In the fall, she was
enrolled in six-hours of college-level courses (government and history), a remedial math
course, and orientation. She withdrew from history, made a D in government, received a
PR in remedial math, and a B in orientation, ending the semester with a 1.50 GPA. She
did not enroll for the spring semester. This student may be an example of one whose
academic future would have been brighter had she been advised to enroll in more than one
remedial course in order to build skills that would have increased her chances of success in
academic core courses.

10

13

1 he third student was a 35 year-oid white female who earned a GED in 1992. She
first enrolled at SPC in the first summer session 1992, attempting introductory chemistry,
but withdrawing. At the same time, she attempted the TASP and tailed all three parts for
the first time. In the second summer session, she enrolled in and completed nursing math
(with a PR). In the tail 1992, she enrolled in 13 hours, including remedial English (which
she completed with a PR), beginning algebra (earning a B), and a remedial reading course
(with an A), earning a cumulative 3.67 GPA. During the tall 1992, she also attempted the
TASP again, improving her math score (but still not passing), and her reading score
stayed the same. In the spring 1993, she enrolled in two remedial courses (English and
nath) and two core cicisses, earning a 3.33 GPA. At this time, she also attempted the
TASP Test two more times; the first time in February, she attempted only the writing
portion, and her score remained the same (Still not passing); in April, she attempted only
the reading portion and scored worse than before. In the second summer session 1993,
this student attempted a remedial English course and biology, but withdrew from both
courses. She also attempted the TASP for the fifth time, taking the writing portion and
scoring lower than before.

In the tall 1993, she attempted the biology course she had first attempted in the
summer and earned a C. She also enrolled in introductory chemistry (earning a B),
remedial English (receiving a PR), and a psychology course from which she withdrew; her
GPA for the tall 1993 semester was 2.50. For the sixth time, she attempted the TASP
Writing Test, scoring lower than ever before. She enrolled in a nutrition course for the
winter term, earning a B. In the Spring 1994, she attempted two biology courses, a
remedial math course, and a psychology course. She earned an A in psychology, a PR in
math, and withdrew from the two biology courses. She took the TASP Test two more
times during that same semester. Attempting the Reading Test two years after taking a
remedial reading course, she scored lower than her first two attempts, but higher than her
last attempt; her writing score remained the same.

11

o 14

ERLC

In the summer 1994, this student enrolled in a biology course and beginning
algebra (the same math course she took in the fall 1992, earning a B at that time); she
withdrew from the biology course. In the fail, she re-attempted the biology course and
intermediate algebra, withdrawing from both. She, for the ninth time, took the TASP,
earning her best nruth score, but still not passing. She did not enroll in the spring 1995.
All in all, this student attended South Plains College for two years, matriculated ten times,
attempted the TASP Test nine times, started with a 3.67 GPA which gradually declined to
a 3.25, and earned 32 SCH, completing only 56 percent of the courses she attempted. Her
best TASP scores were a 212 in reading (her first attempt), 210 in math, and 200 in
writing (also her first attempt). This case study profiles a student who may indeed have
the intelligence and ability to complete college courses when taken one at a time and with
tutorial support, but who, because of academic background and history, lacks the
academic skills to perform consistently or to attempt a full academic load. This was a
student in need of extensive and intensive advisement.

Three Options. Three options surface in providing for at-risk students. The first,
and best option, is to provide extensive and thorough remediation, enabling these students
to acquire the necessary skills and perform successfully in the college-level program of
their choice. A second option is to dilute the curriculum and lower academic standards;
although this may be a simpler option, it is unsatisfactory for obvious reasons. The third
option, likewise unsatisfactory, is to shut the community college's "open door" and let in
only those students who come tiilly prepared. With increased numbers of nontraditional
students seeking post-secondary education and the fact that recent high school graduates'
TAAS scores show only limited, if any, improvement in recent years, the third option
would likely translate into a very small population of qualified students.

Therefore, the Learning Center faculty recommend that SPC administrators and
board members examine the demographics of our student population, including the data
on TASP performance, and adequately fund remediation in order to ensure quality

12

standards and guaranteeing that the "open door" does not take students down a road of
limited opportunity or become a "revolving door" ensuring that students exit almost as
rapidly as they enter. With over a third of SPC students requiring some kind of
remediation, it would seem to suggest that a third of SPC instructional resources be
devoted to providing the best kind of remediation possible.

Faculty: Professional Developmental Educators

Five professional developmental educators are employed in the South Plains
College Learning Center. The Director of the Learning Center holds a doctor philosophy
degree in human development. The three tenured assistant professors cf reading each
hold a master's degree plus a minimum of 24 graduate hours in a content field. The lab
instructor also holds a master's degree. All professional employees are employed full-time.

Faculty in the Learning Center are assessed by (a) exceeding SACS criteria and
possessing identified skills and competencies at the time of employment; (b) annually
providing documentation of professional development activities; and (c) routine student
evaluations. (Student evaluations, also used to evaluate instruction, were described in the
preceding section of this report.)

The Future of Developmental Education and the SPC Learning Center

At the 1995 College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) Conference, a
roundtable session set as its goal identifying issues for developmental educators and
defining the fiiture for developmental education. Working in breakout groups,
participants reached consensus concerning the following four goals: ( 1 ) Developmental
educators must be proactive (anticipating trends, issues, etc.); (2) Developmental
educators must be politically active (telling the story of developmental education, setting
standards in post-secondary education; empowering students to tell their own stories of
success; pursuing funding for developmental education, etc.); (3) Developmental
educators must demonstrate accountability (by collecting and analyzing data concerning

13

1G

students outcomes, publishing findings); and (4) Developmental educators must become
experts in technology (creating and using computer classrooms, producing multimedia
presentations, participating in distance learning, using networks, etc.).

The faculty in the Learning Center attempt to live at the cutting edge when it
comes to their professional development; therefore, these goals are embraced and eftbrts
are expended to actualize each of the goal statements. For example, through the
institutional process of CQI (Continuous Quality Management), the faculty and staif in
the Learning Center have used vision techniques to explore the issues of managing and
becoming expert in technology. Specifically, faculty (and students) in the Learning Center
have identified the need for more computer support in terms of both (a) greater availability
of computers to be used for specific applications (word processing, networking, electronic
communication, CD ROMs, multimedia presentations/classroom instruction, etc.), and (b)
greater capability of computers to perform sophisticated operations (the need for more
RAM in the tile server, 486 processors, CD ROM drives, Internet access, etc.). More
sophisticated hardware would also permit more sophisticated applications (such as
Windows).

Academic support programs can be enhanced significantly by the availability and
use of new technologies; however, the use of sophisticated technologies requires capital
expenditures, the like of which the Learning Center has not seen in several years. In sum,
the Learning Center is failing to keep pace with the educational technologies which can
revolutionize learning and truly provide both access and quality for SPC students who, as
a group, tend to be at-risk for academic success. Each year we fail to make progress, we
lag farther behind with the chances of keeping pace becoming more remote. In addition to
the requirements for equipment, the Learning Center faculty must also receive training in
the use of sophisticated applications; this training also requires financial support in the
form of professional development funding.

14

Conclusion. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, 1994)
found that despite more than decade of attempting to reform public education and improve
the academic preparation of high school graduates, little progress (if any) has been made.
Recent data from the NAEP concerning the reading skills of high school seniors paints an
even bleaker picture than what had been predicted, with the majority of students reporting
that they hardly ever read in school and never read outside school. Even if recent TAAS
performance is taken into consideration, the situation identified in A Oeneration of
Failure has not improved.

Perhaps policy-makers are not all wrong when they lament that "taxpayers are
having to pay twice' 1 [to teach basic academic skills] (Nancy Atlas, The Dallas Morning
News, November 21, A20); however, such comments are short-sighted when directed at
higher education because they fail to take into account the diversity of today's student
body in colleges and universities. Today's typical student is not an eighteen year-old male,
recent high school graduate who take?, 15 semester credit hours each term, relies on mom
and dad to pay his bills, including tuition and fees, and has plenty of time to study and
party. Today's typical student may have just as strong a desire to party and enjoy college
life, but she is a returning student, not a recent high school graduate; she works to not
only pay for her schooling, but also to support her family, which means she attends college
on a part-time basis. John Roueche, Director of the Community College Leadership
Program at the University of Texas, recently identified the availability of childcare as the
number one issue affecting community college enrollments in the future (informal remarks,
South Plains College, Levelland, TX, April 4, 1995).

Although nontraditional students may be highly motivated to succeed and mature
enough to handle the social and psychological demands of college life, they often need, in
addition to student support services (such as childcare and financial aid), substantial
academic support services. Many, if not most., will require some developmental

15

ER£ 13

coursework in order to review the specialized reading, writing, and math skills
prerequisite to academic success.

Community colleges desiring future growth and success will take into account the
many and varied needs of today's students. Based on its historical record, an investment in
developmental education will prove to be a wise move.

16

References

Ash wort h, K. (1994, November). An Interview with the Commissioner of Higher
Education, TJCTA Messenger, XXYI(2).

Committee on Testing. (1986, July). A generation of failure. Austin, TX:
The Texas; Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Friedlander, J. (1982). Should remediation be mandatory? ERIC Report. Community
College Review, % 56-64.

Maxwell, M. (1981). Improving student learning skills. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 1994). The national report card.
Washington, D.C: The United States Department of Education.

Piatt, G. M. ( 1992). Assessing program effectiveness: It's a tough job but somebody's
got to do it. ERIC Document No. ED 346 916.

Piatt, G. M. (1987). A commitment to literacy. ERIC Document No. ED 297 795.

Roueche, J. E., Baker, G. A., Ill, & Rouche, S. ( 1985). Access with excellence.
Toward academic excellence in college. Community College Review,
U 4-9.

Roueche, J. E, & Roueche, S. D. (1977). Developmental education: A primer
for program development and evaluation. Atlanta: Southern Region
Education Board.

Rounds, J. C, & Anderson, D. ( 1985). Placement in remedial college classes:
Required versus recommended. Community College Review, JX

20-27.

Skinner, E. F, & Carter, S. (1987). A second-chance for Texans: Remedial
education in two-year colleges. Tempe, AZ: National Center for
Post-secondary Governance at Arizona State University.

20

TABLE A

Analysis of June 1995 TASP Data
for South Plains College
Level land Campus Only
N = 279

Passed All
Parts of TASP

Failed only
reading

Failed only
math

Failed only
writing

n - 140 (50%)

n = 18 (6.5%)

n = 42 (15%)

n « 12 (4.3%)

Failed All
Parts of TASP

Failed reading
and math

Failed reading
and writing

Failed math
and writing

n « 25 (9%)

n * 22 (8%)

n = 11 (4%)

n = 9 (3.2%)

Data reported by Gail M. Piatt, Ph.D., Director of the Learning
Center, South Plains College, Levelland (August 1995).

21

ATTACHMENT A

Class Reaction Survey

I would like to know your reactions to today's class. Please read
each of the statements below and circle the letter corresponding to
the response which best matches your reaction to class today. Your
choices are:

A = No improvement needed. (Great ideasl I understood it all.)
B = A little improvement needed. (I didn't get it all, but I

did get some good ideasl)
C = Improvement is needed. (It wasn't awful, but I didn't get much

at all out of what we did in class today.)
D = Much improvement needed. (I didn't get anything out of what

we did today. I felt my time was wasted.)

Today, the instructor

material .

Made it clear why the material might be important..

Told how we could use the material being presented.

Highlighted key ideas or questions.

Presented many good examples to clarify concepts.

Provided enough variety to keep us reasonably
alert.

7. Found ways to get us involved in the material.

Helped us summarize the main ideas we were
supposed to get from the class.

9. What is your overall rating of the class? A = excellent

B = good

C = satisfactory
D = weak
F = stunk

10. What kept you from rating the class higher?

A

B

C

D

1 .

A

B

C

D

2.

A

B

C

D

3.

A

B

C

D

4.

A

B

C

D

5.

A

B

C

D

6.

A

B

C

D

7.

A

B

c

D

8.

ERIC

22

ATTACHMENT B

REVISED FALL 1993

COURSE REVISION

CHECK REVISION(S)

Prefix

Lec./Lab hrs.

Prerequisites

PREFIX REVISION HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE REGISTRAR.

DEPARTMENT The Learning C*n?«j

Course(s) to be revised (include course prefix, number, lecture-lab hours, title and
description for both the current course and the revised course)

CURRENT COURSE HP 130 (3:3: 0) COLLEGE SUCCESS COURSE Based on princi ples nf
psychology, this co urse is desig n e d to help students identify personal strengths, dffltttop
interpersonal skills (especially self-management skills), and apply those strengths and skills
for Success ifl COfleoe. on the fob, and in their personal fiv e s. This course is recommended
for Students O n academi c p roba t ion and is required for students returning to college after
academic susp ension nr h y p la ce m e nt hy thft Ad m issions Committee. (PSVC 2312)

REVISED COURSE HP 130 (3:3:0) SELF-MANAGEMENT FOR SUCCESS IN A CHANGING
WORLD The Study Of in d i vidual behavior within social contexts, emphasizing cognitive
metacognitive, and PSVCho-sociaJ processes. Based on principles of developmental
psychology, th is course in cludes p ersonal assessments, attitude formation and change.
i nterpersonal relations, group p r ocesses, and the processes of adjustment. This course is
recommended for Students on academic pr o bation and is required for students returning to
college after academic suspension or bv placement bv the A dmissions Committee. (PSYC
22121

JUSTIFICATION The revised course thie and description not only capture course content
but the Course description i s worded to conform to the CCGACGM's description ("The
Study Of individual behavior within the soci a l environment. May include topics such as the
SPCio-DSVchQlOQical process, attitude forma t ion and change, interpersonal relations, and
group processes" No. 42.1601 .51 4 2 ). The description also is parallel with the
descriptions of courses taugh t at public four-year colleges (Lamar University. Stephen F.
Austin University, and Angelo State) ,

C.B. APPROVAL #: 42.1601.51 42

DEPARTMENTAL CHAIRPERSON DEAN
DATE DATE

CURRICULUM COMMITTEE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
DATE DATE

X Title Change

X Course Description

23